Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) for yielding time for me to speak on this amendment.

I rise in strong opposition to the Quigley amendment because it represents an unnecessary use of case law in Massachusetts v. EPA. Some of what I say is repetitive. Mr. Harper has just said it, but it bears repeating, Madam Chair.

This amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study analyzing how health care costs will be affected if the EPA does not proceed with regulation in its role as determined in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Madam Chair, I would like to remind the author of the amendment, Mr. Quigley, that Massachusetts v. EPA did not determine whether or how the EPA should regulate greenhouse gases. Furthermore, a GAO study on this matter is not necessary because the EPA has already concluded that greenhouse gases have no adverse health effect.

Specifically, the EPA has stated: ``Current and projected ambient greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds for any direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects.''

Opponents of this legislation have tried unsuccessfully to assert that the underlying bill will block the EPA from safeguarding public health from the effects of air pollution and will result in increased asthma attacks or other respiratory illnesses. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Madam Chair, H.R. 910 does not affect the EPA's ability and responsibility to protect the public from hazardous air pollution. Regardless of whether or not EPA imposes these cap-and-trade regulations, the agency will continue to have the authority to regulate all of the high-priority pollutants that raise public health concerns.

As an original cosponsor of H.R. 910, I strongly support the underlying bill to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

By avoiding these harmful regulations, H.R. 910 will save countless numbers of jobs and prevent the implementation of an energy tax that would cost our economy literally tens of billions of dollars when we can least afford it.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I want to thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding and again thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Messrs. Upton and Whitfield, for again allowing me to speak on this amendment.

Much like the previous amendment, I rise again in strong opposition, opposition at this time to the Polis amendment because it seeks to give a duplicative authority to the EPA. This amendment would temporarily suspend H.R. 910 if the EPA administrator has ruled that ground-level ozone, extreme weather events, or an increase in food- and water-borne pathogens presents a significant danger to the public health, or that there are other significant threats to public health.

Madam Chair, under section 303 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA already has the authority to respond to any imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. Therefore, this amendment is wholly unnecessary. Furthermore, the Polis amendment would give the EPA administrator the authority to move forward with a cap-and-trade agenda if the administrator believed that there were threats to public health from ozone, extreme weather, pathogens, or there are other significant threats to public health, which could be completely unrelated to greenhouse gases.

I wholeheartedly believe that this amendment is literally a hammer in search of a nail. The EPA already has the authority to address the concerns raised by this amendment and my friend from Colorado. I would urge my friend from Colorado to consider withdrawing this amendment; but if he doesn't, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose it and continue to support the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Source